78 comments:

Obama being a typical lefty here: If you have "always been on the right side" it doesn't matter what you otherwise say or do. God it's easy to be a liberal. You can treat women like crap in your personal life, but if you support abortion, you get a free pass.

As for Reid, why is it praising Obama to call him "light skinned"? Does Obama consider that a compliment?

Does he consider being able to turn "Negro talk" on and off a compliment?

Yep Crack, that's the one. Just about the most despicable thing a politician has ever said in my book. Men dying in battle and the people who sent them there announcing their failure just before victory. A disgrace.

So liberals embrace crap-treaters of women like Tiger Woods and Charlie Sheen?

Don't know about Tiger Woods, but I do know that the demographic for "Two and Half Men" skews highly liberal, scoring it's best ratings in NYC, LA proper, Austin, and, yes, San Francisco. Very few conservatives care for it.

fls writes "So liberals embrace crap-treaters of women like Tiger Woods and Charlie Sheen? I guess the liberal market is too small to advertise to."

They sure as hell would embrace them if there was a political advantage to doing so. In what way is what Tiger did any different than what Clinton did? Hell, last time I checked, Kennedy got a pass for actually (albeit by accident) killing someone he was hitting on.

This topic is so damn stupid it should make any sane person's head hurt. This country has been so dumbed down that the only "news" we get is condensed three word sentence, or gaffe, or misstatement, from beltway mavens like Mark Halperin. It doesn't matter how the guy voted for decades where it counts, but in an off hand remark in private, two years ago. If I was paid millions to report on politics I would be embarrassed in my craft writing about high school gossipy chit chat that absolutely nobody gives a fuck about. They had a entire fucking year to learn about the health care debate, the policies being debated, how it will effect Americans, and they still couldn't be bothered to learn it. Or worse, didn't care. All we got was "yes Chris, the tea partiers are screaming a little louder today, we'll check in tomorrow to see who is yelling the loudest".

The last time I heard someone talk about being on the right (or wrong) side of history is when Christopher Dodd, that other outstanding recipient of big bank money, told us that, "By opposing the spread of Communism in Africa, we may be on the wrong side of history".

Funny how the first and third leading recipients of bank bribes who were paid to look the other way while the American people were sold out in the US Senate talk about the same thing.

PS I love how fls tries to turn the Reid thing into an indictment of the American people - typical Alinsky. It might work if The Zero was the only Negro (I'm going to use that word now that Dingy Harry has made it acceptable again) ever to be elected to public office since Reconstruction.

[Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he later put it privately.

A gifted Presidential candidate whose blackness would not turn off the American people.

Obama called his granny a typical white person. It was a politically silly thing to say but not a capital offense. Does Obama think there is a white "type." Probably not--it's a shorthand, a careless, imprecise but relatively harmless one.

Colin Powell has described himself as "not that black." A true statement. When I have a good tan, I'm as black as Powell. He meant that as a result he was somewhat less threatening, or had somewhat less of a problem with credibility, with some white people. Was that racist? No, it was probably true. He certainly believed it true, and used it to his advantage.

When people said that Obama "transcends race" during the campaign, what did they mean? In part, they meant he talked like the Harvard guy he was, not like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, with whom he was directly compared. Was that racist? Were half the TV commentators in the nation racist because of that?

We got all gooey after the election because a black person won. Why? Because the assumption was that a black person could not win. Was that assumption racist, or just a reading of history?

Don't get me wrong. I think Reid is a crafty, scheming, dishonest, corrupt and deeply disturbing person. I hope he loses reelection. But all he did was accurately describe Obama in the context of an election where race did matter.

Is anyone actually offended by what Reid said? Or is it just a gotcha game? In which case, who do the conservatives calling for Reid's head think they are winning over? It certainly isn't minorties. Is it the "I'm sick of blacks bitching about discrimination" crowd? In which case, aren't they already Republicans?

The issue is total political bullshit. Michael Steele thinks this is his in to the vaunted "Waterloo" that the GOP fantasizes over. The mouth-frothing was so copious that he even forgot who was behind the backlash over segregationist-admirer Trent Lott's comments. Lott's retirement resulted from the typical GOP opportunism based in an existing desire (one shared by the White House) to replace him with Bill Frist.

Not that what Lott said wasn't much worse. It was. But of course, none of you really care about anything other than the politics of all this anyway. A real debate about this topic would be a lost cause here in Wonderland.

You don't understand, Montagne. To Althousian Republicans, there is no constituency other than the Republican base. In their mind, no other constituencies exist, so they certainly aren't worth acknowledging. Only "enemy" countrymen exist in their minds, and they will either remain eternally alien and under attack for the constant eyesore they present, or assimilated into the Republican base.

No other options for these people. No surrender, no regret. Not even for the sake of acknowledging reality. If reality becomes a casualty of their politics, so be it, I guess.

I didn't fixate on those testicles of yours which you willingly offered to donate to the political cause of the War on Terrrrr, Bag'O. I just remember how ridiculous the lengths are to which you will to in order to make a bad argument every time your avatar pops up.

You'll have to forgive me for always remembering and finding it funny that you literally put your balls on the line. I mean, it is a pretty ridiculous place to go. Not many people would do that. And if you want me to forget about it every time you loiter around the comment threads, you'll have to say something even more memorable. Whether that something turns out to be memorable because it was actually intelligent (for the first time) or because it was just as ridiculous as your last line is up to you and your homunculus.

Harsh Pencil wrote: Obama being a typical lefty here: If you have "always been on the right side" it doesn't matter what you otherwise say or do. God it's easy to be a liberal. You can treat women like crap in your personal life, but if you support abortion, you get a free pass.

Flip a few of the words around, and you get the reason that Vitter is still in the Senate.

Is anyone actually offended by what Reid said? Or is it just a gotcha game? In which case, who do the conservatives calling for Reid's head think they are winning over? It certainly isn't minorties. Is it the "I'm sick of blacks bitching about discrimination" crowd? In which case, aren't they already Republicans?

Color me confused.

A lot of people are offended, I would imagine. Forget conservatives or Republicans for a minute (physical and psychological impossibility in your case, I know), consider the people in any kind of public life who misspoke and were driven from their jobs as a PC object lesson.

People like Anita Bryant or Al Campanis. That a human canker sore like Harry Reid could say something as cynical and hateful and contemptuous of the American people as he did and have every Leftist slug in the country put on their Janus face to defend him because ObambiCare is in his hands is extremely offensive.

Like most of the Democrat caucus in the Senate, Harry Reid is a traitor. For five years, he gave aid and comfort to the enemy so his party could gain a political advantage, something that cost hundreds of American lives. The very least he should be made to do is resign the Majority Leader post. You see nothing wrong with this because you have the same views as Dingy Harry and the same agenda. The idea that white Americans could find such a statement repulsive is beyond your grasp.

I seem to remember that Rush Limbaugh caught holy hell from the Left for making the same kind of observation about Donovan McNab. Yet he was a conservative, so his commenting on the media's attitude about black quarterbacks was OBVIOUS evidence of his own personal racism according to Leftist opportunists. They knew, and know, better. But still they tried to tarnish him with the broad brush of racism anyway.

It's amazing how very little they like having the same game played when it's one of their own on the chopping block.

It's called being hoisted on your petards, Leftists. I know that won't stop you from doing it again when the opportunity presents itself, but it does make for some good comedy watching you twist yourselves into pretzels trying to defend what Reid said.

::sits back with his popcorn::

P.S. Before the usual suspects get started, don't bother posting that bogus list of Limbaugh's supposedly racist comments that endlessly circulates in the dungeons of dKos, DU, etc. They've all been proven to be either complete fabrications or intentionally out of context, so don't waste your time or anyone else's with your cut-and-paste skills.

"To Althousian Republicans, there is no constituency other than the Republican base. In their mind, no other constituencies exist, so they certainly aren't worth acknowledging. Only 'enemy' countrymen exist in their minds, and they will either remain eternally alien and under attack for the constant eyesore they present, or assimilated into the Republican base.

No other options for these people. No surrender, no regret. Not even for the sake of acknowledging reality. If reality becomes a casualty of their politics, so be it, I guess."

Funny, I grew up in Los Angeles, and lived in San Francisco for almost 20 years, so I think I know liberals pretty fucking well - and that's why I despise them. It is they who've decided the rest of the nation - in "flyover country" - don't exist or are expendable. It is they who decided anyone who doesn't go along with their anti-Americanism is "the enemy". It is they who decided to attack their own countrymen for the sake of another - almost any other - because their country, in a dangerous world, has provided for them so well. Their hypocrisy is galling.

Now, from the other side, no, we have no interest in assimilating anyone - you will be defeated. The "reality" is that you only win a major election every 20 years as it is, so bringing that to an end will not be difficult once our minds are finally made up to stop pussyfooting around and bury liberalism in this country once and for all. ("No other options,...No surrender, no regret.") We have no need for you, Ritmo. The results of this last hurrah have made it abundantly clear what kind of scum you are, how dangerous you are, what "clueless" means, and why the growing disgust is becoming palapable.

When your hand is on the tiller that decides who will and will not be destroyed by "inartful comments," the racial gotcha system is good thing, full of rewards, paid for with other people's money and careers.

The higher casualties were not a surprise to any thinking adult, the enemy does not quit because we announce a surge. You have to win it. Which we did. But, if Harry had his way, we would have lost those lives and then lost the war with all the resultant benefits of victory going to a disgusting, child-beheading bunch of animals. They could claim victory, have their recruiting soar and spread their lovely ideology out from Iraq. Imagine the Iraq of today if Harry had his way. He knew this would be the effect if we cut and run and he was a champion of failure and retreat regardless.

Our country has no use for leaders who abandon their men-at-arms because the fight they sent them to was not the easy political game they hoped. Our military are men and women who have decided their honor is more valuable than their lives and he wanted to steal it from them. He's a coward and a man virtually devoid of character. I would despise him even if he agreed with me on everything else.

Jim inadvertently puts his finger on the issue: Rush's racially-charged statement was similar to Geraldine Ferraro's -- in both cases the black man did not deserve to be where they were. McNabb's reputation was a creation of media who wanted a black man to look good irrespective of his actual performance, while Geraldine Ferraro said that Obama would not be so popular were he not a male and black.

In contrast, Reid rationally saw being black as the handicap to voter approval that it had historically been.

It's my impression that most conservatives believed Obama's black half was an advantage in the election, and most liberals, while they liked it, thought it was an obstacle to his election.

That illustrates a big difference in attitudes about the American people and how it leads to different political objectives. When you believe people are stupid racists, then it follows that they must be controlled, regulated, lied to, and kept out of the political decision makings.

Ohhhh....! Looks like a nerve was touched inside that sensitive little soul called the Cracked Emcee.

By now I know how you guys reveal your sensitivity. The bravado, you might think it "manly". Yet in reality it's anything but.

Other than that, I don't have anything to say other than to remark at your capacity for unwarranted and foul-mouthed vituperation. And how great it is to be lectured by a 20-year native of L.A. on what "the flyover" people supposedly want. Have you considered changing your name to Holden Caulfield, by any chance?

And no, Cracked. I don't take it personally that you take your broken childhood out on me and other casualties of your defensiveness. Re-enable access to your profile (and what about that wonderful blogged the professor links to?) and then I might actually entertain the idea that there's some honest attempt at truth yet lingering around underneath all that bravado and paternalism.

Ritmo, Like many left commenters here, your arguments amount to little more than straw men or personal attacks on people, which you guys then try to dress up in flowery verbiage, but the result is similar to using scented toilet paper and poorly scented at that.

Funny, I grew up in Los Angeles, and lived in San Francisco for almost 20 years, so I think I know liberals pretty fucking well - and that's why I despise them. It is they who've decided the rest of the nation - in "flyover country" - don't exist or are expendable. It is they who decided anyone who doesn't go along with their anti-Americanism is "the enemy".

Funny. I grew up in the Bay Area and lived in SF for many years and feel EXACTLY the same way. Unfortunately some of my family are liberals so I have to take a pass on despising them. We don't get along very well: and have made a pact (after the Thanksgiving dinner that I walked out on because I couldn't stand listening to them anymore) that when we get together......NO politics.

The "liberals" in the People's Republic of California (Bay Area) all pretty much have their heads firmly planted up their asses. They refuse to see reality and live in a liberal la la land bubble. Because they don't know anyone and refuse to know anyone who is conservative, they refuse to believe than anyone could possibly have a different opinion. Their sense of superiority and entitled elitism stinks to high heaven.

When the shit hits the fan, as it will, they are going to be so unprepared, surprised and will be unable to cope with 'real life' instead of the pretend life that they are living now.

fls writes nomilk -- I think Peter meant that you can cheat on your wife with a variety of whores, but as long as you oppose abortion you get a free pass. God it's easy to be a conservative.

You know, I've never heard a social conservative argue that what Vitter did is no big deal or in any way try to justify it. I just haven't. Have you? Can anyone actually give a link for a "no big deal" kind of quote for Vitter?

It's true that there haven't been many calls for him to resign, but that's an entirely different thing than running to his defense like Dems do for theirs (like Obama just did for Reid.)

Ritmo, Like many left commenters here, your arguments amount to little more than straw men or personal attacks on people

Give me a break! That's fucking bullshit and you know it. I'm more than capable of putting forth a more than adequate argument and you know it. And stop pretending you speak for everybody. I've gotten enough feedback here to know you don't. I don't care if a clear majority loves me or not; I don't see a need to make popularity the most important thing. When I find people here who contribute in a respectable way I let them know and go from there. Some of them respond in kind. It works out. I don't need to lead or be a part of a movement.

But when you answer back with personal stuff, it doesn't offend me. I just respond in kind. Why the hell shouldn't I? But if you want to debate or talk about anything other than me versus you, or this person versus that, which one is "better", and actually address some issues of the day in an objective or impersonal way, you know I can give as good as I can get. If you can't give very good, and just throw half-assed arguments my way, it's hard not to make fun of them - I'll admit. But if you at least take your own arguments seriously enough to not get offended at their being challenged, then you can help yourself to being treated like an adult. I have no problem with that and could care less about what the particular point of view actually is - as long as it's credible.

As opposed to the inadequate debating skills of the fuzzy green race of Kermit Teh Frog who speaks in an amphibious dialect. Miss Piggy can hardly understand him and it is somewhat embarrassing in the more upscale Hog Events.

So all liberals are just elitist cocoon-dwellers. I get the script, Bunny. Really, I do. And I'm sure that as with the caricatures I can draw of populist Palinite conserva-wanna bes, there's some truth to your remarks as well. Hell, I'm sure every stereotype has a kernel of truth in it, if only you go digging deep enough.

But I don't know what the opposition to the right (and I don't even call it "liberalism", since I'm not sure it will be a mirror image of the answers to the issues FDR faced) will ultimately look like. But what I know is this: For all my life, I've listened to politicians who had no sense of depth and looked on the issues of the day with a sense of attention deficit disorder. That's about to change and enough Americans have realized it. No matter how difficult the problems you threw Obama's way, it's Bush and the Republicans who were at least as unserious about doing anything credible to stop them! People, I think, will remember that.

Leadership isn't just about winning beauty contests. It's not about being stubbornly decisive to a point of arbitrariness. It's about taking the long view and doing what's in America's interests in twenty-years' time, not just for tomorrow or for the next news cycle. And that's something the opposition sucks at.

As short-sighted as Americans all over the political spectrum are, I have a feeling that enough of them, over time, will come to appreciate leadership that doesn't live for today at the expense of a tomorrow. But I guess when you organize your life around what the Bible tells you of an apocalypse, you shouldn't expect much better. But hey, if that's the kind of theocratic and immature political movement you want to ally yourself, by all means. Go for it.

I'll live my life in expectation that enough of the others will come around to appreciating the grown-up way of doing things, if they haven't already.

And I'm not saying that to be condescending. I'm saying that because throwing out half-assed answers to the country's problems has horrible consequences. At some point there's actually a difference between politicking and governing, and if the party that hates governing as if it were schoolwork or a chore doesn't get that, it should just stick to their beauty contests and celebrations of bravado and get out of the way.

Four months into the surge and more of our guys are being killed than ever and you think criticism somehow demeans the troops whose death rate is going up?

The reason for the increased casualties was that the military had shifted from a hunker down mode into a clear and hold strategy, which meant that instead of troops sitting around in well protected camps, they were going into the towns and fighting the insurgents.

But the reason that the criticism of the "surge" at 4 months was so egregious was that for most of that time we had been emplacing blocking forces in preparation for the actual clearing. And that required the ramping up of troop levels into Iraq.

If the blocking forces had not been prepositioned, when our troops entered towns and cities for the clear and hold, the insurgents would have just pulled out and gone on to the next town. Instead, they were ultimately forced into smaller and smaller areas, as they were forced out of towns, into smaller and smaller areas, which ultimately resulted in their destruction.

The problem for Reid and all the rest of those condemning the surge as ineffective at that point is that if we, the people outside D.C. knew what was going on in Iraq, Congress surely knew, or at least should have known. While specific troop placements and activities may not have been public knowledge, the overall strategy was well known at the time.

And, amazing enough, the "surge" worked very much as it had been explained to Congress.

I'm saying that because throwing out half-assed answers to the country's problems has horrible consequences. At some point there's actually a difference between politicking and governing, and if the party that hates governing as if it were schoolwork or a chore doesn't get that, it should just stick to their beauty contests and celebrations of bravado and get out of the way.

Sure sounds a lot like the Democrats right now, esp. the first part in relation to health care "reform".

That really has been the problem with liberal policies for a long time - the unintended consequences. Apparently, if intentions are good, any unintended consequences are acceptable.

We can go back to the New Deal, which very likely extended and deepened the Great Depression, turning what should have been a couple of years of hardship into better than a decade of suffering.

Then, there was the Great Society, which managed, through its War on Poverty to destroy the family structure of much of the underclass, and esp. in the Black community. Multi-generational single parent parenting became the norm, with the result that the males, were never civilized by their (missing) fathers, but rather, ended up in prison after running in gangs.

So, now we have a 2,000 or so page bill that no one has read that is supposed to solve all of our health care problems. Who in their right mind believes that the unintended consequences of enacting that are going to dwarf those of the New Deal or the Great Society? At least those had some thought behind them, and were somewhat incremental.

Jim inadvertently puts his finger on the issue: Rush's racially-charged statement was similar to Geraldine Ferraro's -- in both cases the black man did not deserve to be where they were. McNabb's reputation was a creation of media who wanted a black man to look good irrespective of his actual performance, while Geraldine Ferraro said that Obama would not be so popular were he not a male and black.

In contrast, Reid rationally saw being black as the handicap to voter approval that it had historically been.1/12/10 7:58 PM

Uh huh.

Ferraro and Rush see black as a plus, PR-wise -- RACIST!!!

Reid sees black as a minus, PR-wise -- RATIONAL!!!

Can't just be a different perspective, those Obama non-worshippers must be racists...right.

So all liberals are just elitist cocoon-dwellers. I get the script, Bunny. Really, I do. And I'm sure that as with the caricatures I can draw of populist Palinite conserva-wanna bes, there's some truth to your remarks as well. Hell, I'm sure every stereotype has a kernel of truth in it, if only you go digging deep enough.

But I don't know what the opposition to the right (and I don't even call it "liberalism", since I'm not sure it will be a mirror image of the answers to the issues FDR faced) will ultimately look like. But what I know is this: For all my life, I've listened to politicians who had no sense of depth and looked on the issues of the day with a sense of attention deficit disorder. That's about to change and enough Americans have realized it. No matter how difficult the problems you threw Obama's way, it's Bush and the Republicans who were at least as unserious about doing anything credible to stop them! People, I think, will remember that.

Leadership isn't just about winning beauty contests. It's not about being stubbornly decisive to a point of arbitrariness. It's about taking the long view and doing what's in America's interests in twenty-years' time, not just for tomorrow or for the next news cycle. And that's something the opposition sucks at.

As short-sighted as Americans all over the political spectrum are, I have a feeling that enough of them, over time, will come to appreciate leadership that doesn't live for today at the expense of a tomorrow. But I guess when you organize your life around what the Bible tells you of an apocalypse, you shouldn't expect much better. But hey, if that's the kind of theocratic and immature political movement you want to ally yourself, by all means. Go for it.

I'll live my life in expectation that enough of the others will come around to appreciating the grown-up way of doing things, if they haven't already.

And in all of this verbal flagellation you still can't articulate why you are a leftist. Instead you try to textually flourish us with your great repartee and self-satisfactorily fall in love with your own words. Here are two words for you to stuff in your lexicon; solemn vapors.

It's nice to be a leftist isn't it? You don't even have to take a stand on a thing. Just hang around and be nothing more than a contrarian and pretend to be one of the cool kids. This is the culmination of your ideological meter. Pathetic.

I'm not offended at all. All Reid did was establish that liberals will only vote for a black candidate provided he is a light skinned black that speaks like a white person.

Reid's civil rights record doesn't necessarily contradict his own views as to what constitutes an acceptable black presidential candidate either. Democrats in general and liberals almost exclusively view African-Americans as less than capable of self-improvement unless aided by a raft of government assistance.

To me the more discouraging racial story of the day is here, particularly when contrasted with this.

So Nearly twice as many blacks now (39%) than in 2007 (20%) say that the “situation of black people in this country” is better than it had been five years earlier even while the jobless gap between African-Americans and all other races actually rose, continuing a disturbing trend (last quote from a CNN Money story)

So even though I'm worse off, because the color of the President's skin is closer to mine, life, by definition, is better. There's a word for that...

Why doesn't President Obama think that Reid acted stupidly? I'm confused.I agree with Rudy Giuliani who says that Reid should not step down. We definitely need this moron presiding over the Democratic Party dominated Senate in order to keep his face before the public, reminding them daily of their incompetence, duplicity and hypocrisy.

had Reid been in the Senate in July of 1944 he would have declared D-Day a failure

No, D-Day was the first time we were engaging the Nazis in Continental Europe, while at they time of the surge, we had already been in Iraq for four years.

The parallel situation to the surge would be if we had still been fighting the Nazis in 1948, with our troops being decimated by insurgents in Berlin and Munich. Years after, of course, FDR had been poured into a jumpsuit and plopped in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

And I'm still trying to picture a context in which "Black people get jobs they don't deserve just because they're black" is not a racist statement.

Moot point, I suppose; in our alternative history with Reid in it, we probably never would have gotten as far as the (ahem) Salerno landing. Harry and FLS would have had us pack it in after Kasserine Pass.

I think it makes a LOT of "sense" - after all, when not even 10% unemployment can pull the GOP's polling numbers out of the basement, & their solemn vow to kill Obama's HCR bill in the Senate turns into yet another episode of fail, while CPAC takes on the John Birch Society as a co-sponsor ... one winds up clutching at the straws one has, not the straws one wishes one had.

Yes, Reid stating the obvious in regards to how Americans viewed Obama during the campaign is EXACTLY like Lott's wistful nostalgia for the good old days of segregation. I'm crazy enough to see them as different ... so I guess that makes me a racist.

"The war is lost and the surge isn't working."

What "worked" in Iraq was paying off militias to halt ethnic cleansing (after waiting until said ethnic cleansing was more or less complete to do so) - & al Sadr unilaterally declaring a humanitarian cease-fire due to massive civilian casualties, & then abandoning the insurgency entirely to renew his religious studies, at a time when he was well on his way to handing "The Coalition Of The Willing" its ass on a platter.

Here's a radical concept: try asking Iraqis if they think they're winners, with 20-30% unemployment, bombs still blowing up in their markets, & elections that exclude the candidates they most want to vote for.

PROTIP: they weren't overjoyed at the news of the US troop pullout because they hate your freedoms.